Poll: Capital City of Earth
- Thread starter Arkley
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was going to say Zurich/Geneva, but then I remembered that Switzerland isn't really representative of ANYWHERE on this planet. I think Brussels is a good idea. It's very close to a number of economically strong nations, it's already essentially purpose built for the EU parliament and the Belgians aren't too nationalistic (that's why it's the EU capital). Alternatively, purpose build a new city in, say, Antartica.
No, but it is it's own state, despite it's tiny size, and the fact that it would otherwise technically be part of NSW.Zeeky_Santos said:
I mean, it certainly has it's own laws, as anyone with an interest in porn, or fireworks is likely to know. XD
Houston, Texas.
Why? Well, Texas doesn't want much to do with the world at large anyway. Who better to give power to than someone who doesn't want it? That guarantees safety from abuse. Essentially, there would be no capital city, because they don't want to rule.
Why? Well, Texas doesn't want much to do with the world at large anyway. Who better to give power to than someone who doesn't want it? That guarantees safety from abuse. Essentially, there would be no capital city, because they don't want to rule.
You know, really, this is a tough thing to answer.
Look at the existing precedents for a 'world union', and you'll see why
The US is a union of states. Ostensibly, they were once seperate countries.
What happened? Well, Washington D.C. seems to have been created specifically to be the capitol.
Australia's states were also seperate colonies at one point.
And Canberra derived from an argument being held between Melbourne and Sydney as to which was more important.
In the end, a new city was created to resolve the argument.
Then there's the EU.
You might notice, that the EU parliament is in Brussels, but the High Court is in Den Haag (The Hague) in the Netherlands.
This might seem arbitrary, but it makes perfect sense when you realise what the EU actually is;
The while the European Union is of course intended to unify Europe as a whole, and officially began as a union of 12 countries, with open borders being the first thing to occur, the EU is actually derived from an older agreement.
In the past, there was an open borders policy between 3 countries, which collectively was known as the Benelux. - In case the name doesn't clear it up, that's Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg.
If you take the Benelux as the starting point of the EU, is it any wonder then that it's major institutions are located in Belgium and the Netherlands?
And therein lies the problem.
Predicting the 'capital' of a united planet would depend to a large extent on how it came into existence.
Look at the existing precedents for a 'world union', and you'll see why
The US is a union of states. Ostensibly, they were once seperate countries.
What happened? Well, Washington D.C. seems to have been created specifically to be the capitol.
Australia's states were also seperate colonies at one point.
And Canberra derived from an argument being held between Melbourne and Sydney as to which was more important.
In the end, a new city was created to resolve the argument.
Then there's the EU.
You might notice, that the EU parliament is in Brussels, but the High Court is in Den Haag (The Hague) in the Netherlands.
This might seem arbitrary, but it makes perfect sense when you realise what the EU actually is;
The while the European Union is of course intended to unify Europe as a whole, and officially began as a union of 12 countries, with open borders being the first thing to occur, the EU is actually derived from an older agreement.
In the past, there was an open borders policy between 3 countries, which collectively was known as the Benelux. - In case the name doesn't clear it up, that's Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg.
If you take the Benelux as the starting point of the EU, is it any wonder then that it's major institutions are located in Belgium and the Netherlands?
And therein lies the problem.
Predicting the 'capital' of a united planet would depend to a large extent on how it came into existence.
Yes I acutally do. The FR loans money to the government in exchange for bonds which gather interest (not sure what the going rate is so we shall say 15% for arguments sake). Every dollar in circulation cost the government $1.15. Were does that 15 cents to pay the loan back come from? From the Federal Reserve of course since they have a monopoly on the dollar making business. Which means another dollar taken out raising it to $2.30 and so on. The government had to arrange a way to pay it back, and they did. Income tax was born to pay their debt. Part of your paycheck is literally going into the pockets of these bankers, all because the politicians had no honor and let themselves be bribed.Viptorian said:
Note that the US Constitution says congress has the right to coin money. Coins have real value since they are made of something of value. Before the gold siezure in the 1930's (I am fairly certain it happened in the 30's, I know it was sometime during the Great Depression), the dollars were backed by gold so they had value. You could trade dollars in on gold. Nowadays they are as worthless as monopoly money. They have value beause we say it does. You can print as much stamped paper as you want, but you can't make more gold.
Whatever city became the World Capital of Earth would no longer belong to that nation, assuming that we would still have nations. Most likely they would do like with Washington DC in America and make it officially a separate entity from the nation. Likely on some nation's borders. For example, on the borders of the United States and Canada or France and Germany. I could also see Russia and China. I doubt it would be anywhere in South America or Africa for various reasons.
On the other hand, if we truly became united we may not have need for nations in the traditional sense. Rather, we'd probably have the whole world divided into sections each having a sort of local government that answers to the supreme government and follows it's orders.
On the other hand, if we truly became united we may not have need for nations in the traditional sense. Rather, we'd probably have the whole world divided into sections each having a sort of local government that answers to the supreme government and follows it's orders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewYork
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/New_York
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewYork
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/New_York
You are correct, but New York City is where the UN building is located. Honestly it would make more sense for it to be in a historically neutral nation like Switzerland, sure the US formed the League of Nations and the UN and came up with the idea, but if you're trying to get leaders from nations like North Korea there it seems awfully slanted.Monkfish Acc. said:
I would think a completely new city should be established in one of those areas. Preferably someplace which is well above sea level just in case. Maybe in Eastern Europe or or Asia, like you said. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the combined continents of Europe, Asia, Russia, etc is the biggest land mass on the planet. May as well be someplace huge.kebab4you said: